Conclusions and recommendations
Background
1. We
are disappointed to note at the outset that the Government, despite
its offers of dialogue, has stalled meaningful engagement with
our Scrutiny Reform Report recommendations over the last 18 months:
by an inadequate response which was six months late and published
on the afternoon the House rose for the summer recess, followed
by the initial refusal of the Foreign Secretary to appear before
us to give oral evidence, alongside EU document debates recommended
but not scheduled for over a year. Whether this is coalition politics
or not, the result has been that much-needed reforms lie unmade.
(Paragraph 9)
2. We note in particular
that one effect of this is that both Standing Order No. 143 and
the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution continue to use pre-Lisbon terminology,
as they date from 1998-despite the fact that our Report included
proposed new versions of both texts. (Paragraph 10)
3. As we have noted
in our evidence sessions, Reports and correspondence, the Government's
policy on EU scrutiny reform is at odds with UK Ministers' claims
in their speeches across the EU about the role of national parliaments—including
the Prime Minister's Bloomberg speech. We can only assume that
the importance attached by the Government to this fundamental
principle does not extend to the scrutiny that takes place in
this House. (Paragraph 11)
4. In the face
of the Government's procrastination we have engaged with other
Committees (particularly the Procedure and Liaison Committees)
to make progress where we can. We set out in this Report what
we have achieved and what more remains to be done, as a guide
for our successors in the next Parliament. We hope that the new
Government, whatever political party or parties it comprises,
will have a more constructive and consistent approach to EU scrutiny
reform and, furthermore, that that Government will recognise the
need, in the UK's national interest, to comply with the principles
of accountability to Parliament prescribed under the Standing
Orders of the House of Commons. (Paragraph
12)
Delays in scheduling debates
5. The
Government's collective failure to schedule so many debates on
EU documents over the past year is deplorable, and is a discourtesy
to this Committee and to all Members of the House. We have not
yet received an adequate explanation, and we doubt one will be
forthcoming. Such a scenario must never be allowed to happen again.
At the very least we expect a new Government to follow previous
practice and ensure that all the outstanding debates are scheduled
within a month of the debate recommendation being confirmed by
the new Committee. (Paragraph
30)
6. We
welcome the letter from the Procedure Committee which shares our
disappointment at the Government's approach. We look to our successor
Committee to engage with the new Procedure Committee in the next
Parliament to pursue reform.
(Paragraph 31)
Select Committees and EU Reporters
7. The
feedback we have received about the EU Reporter initiative has
been generally positive. While we note that the Liaison Committee
decided that Select Committees should have discretion over whether
or not to appoint EU Reporters we would like to see as many Committees
as possible in the new Parliament choose to do so. We recommend
that all Departmental Select Committees (and cross-cutting Committees
such as the Environmental Audit Committee) in the new Parliament
specifically consider the appointment of an EU Reporter at their
first meeting. (Paragraph
36)
Papers deposit
8. We
do not accept most of the Government's proposals for future non-deposit.
At this stage of the Parliament, however, we consider that the
best approach is to publish our recommendations for consideration
by our successors. (Paragraph 39)
9. We set out in
the Annex to this Report our response to the Government's proposals
on "streamlining" which documents are formally deposited
in Parliament. While we accept some of its proposals, the cumulative
effect of the others would considerably reduce the number of documents
formally scrutinised by Parliament, which we think would be a
retrograde step. We trust that once the debates issue is resolved
our successor Committee will engage with the Government to resolve
the future scope of document deposit, and the associated updates
of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution (including an opt-in version
of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution). We note that deposit is a
bicameral process, so any such changes will also need to be agreed
by the House of Lords EU Committee. (Paragraph
40)
Limité documents
10. The
draft guidance issued by the Government on making limité
documents available to the Committee places a welcome emphasis
on the need for the Government to press at EU level for the removal
of the limité classification on particular documents. We
ask the Government to reflect on our other observations on the
guidance and bring back an improved text to our successor Committee.
(Paragraph 50)
11. We continue
to take the view that the Government should be making access by
Parliament to limité documents more straightforward, and
the first step is for Parliament to know which limité documents
have been issued. We stress that the Government would retain its
discretion over whether or not to release them to us. (Paragraph
51)
12. Despite
the modest nature of our request the Government's replies have
been both evasive and frustrating. We recommend that our successor
Committee demands the simple weekly list this Government has seemingly
found it impossible to provide.
(Paragraph 52)
TTIP scrutiny
13. We
recommend that our successor Committee hold a session with the
relevant Minister early in the new Parliament to take forward
our scrutiny of TTIP. We agree that MPs and Peers should have
equivalent access to documents as MEPs (as should Parliamentarians
of other EU Member States) and urge the Government to secure this
important commitment.
(Paragraph 61)
14. We ask the
Government to inform all Members of the House about the progress
of negotiations during the period before Select Committees are
appointed, when there is no mechanism for our Committee secretariat
to publish incoming correspondence. (Paragraph
62)
Stakeholder survey
15. Our
Scrutiny Reform Report concluded that we would in future consider
in more detail the "impacts" of EU legislation. Stakeholder
engagement is clearly an important part of that process. We have
some excellent examples over this Parliament of effective liaison
with outside bodies, but there is always more that could be done
to raise the profile of the Committee, particularly using our
website and social media, and we look to our successor Committee
in the new Parliament to take that forward. We recommend that
our successor Committee repeat this survey exercise at regular
intervals in the new Parliament to get feedback on the scrutiny
system. (Paragraph 67)
Scrutiny Reform Report and the BBC
16. In
summary, we still remain deeply concerned about the manner in
which the BBC treats EU issues. Our witnesses seemed to be more
intent on defending and asserting their own opinions, mindset
and interpretation of the obligations under the Charter and Framework
Agreement than in whether they had in fact discharged them or
whether they had the mindset to carry through their post-Wilson
aims. In the interest of the licence fee payers, and the public
in general, and in the context of the approaching General Election
and a prospective referendum on the EU, and given the fact that
the BBC themselves state that 58% of the public look to the BBC
for news they trust, we believe that the BBC has a duty under
its Charter, Framework Agreement and the general law, and following
the Wilson report in particular, to improve substantially the
manner in which it treats EU issues.
(Paragraph 90)
17. Furthermore,
we conclude that in the light of the evidence we have taken over
the past two years from the BBC, and given the statements made
by the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead, indicating that
even she, as Chairman of the Trust, wishes to see reform of governance,
that our criticisms of the way the BBC treats EU issues, and the
approach by its leaders to the Committee, particularly the initial
refusal to give oral evidence, shows that accountability to Parliament
must be a key factor to be considered as part of the review of
the BBC Charter in 2016, as should be strict adherence to the
aims set out by the BBC in its response to the Wilson Review
(Paragraph 91)
18. We deeply regret
the fact that Lord Hall's repeated refusals to give oral evidence
delayed the session to such an extent that it has not been possible
to conduct further work on these issues before the dissolution
of Parliament. Our central tenet, regarding the BBC's coverage
of the EU scrutiny process in the House, and EU issues more generally,
is that the country's public service broadcaster must command
wide confidence in its coverage of such a sensitive and complex
issue. We do not believe that this has been achieved (Paragraph
93)
19. Given the possibility
of a referendum on the UK's EU membership before the end of the
decade, and potentially a renegotiation of the Treaties, the issue
of how the media in general, and the BBC in particular, covers
the EU is of paramount importance. We asked Lord Hall if, as Director-General,
he would undertake to appear before our successor Committee, and
he responded that "if the subject matter was one that involved
the BBC in some sort of way, I or others would appear." We
welcome this commitment. (Paragraph 94)
Other developments
20. Making
scrutiny more effective for the duration of the EU legislative
process is a high priority for EU Affairs Committees across Member
States. Our successor Committee will wish, we are sure, to take
a continued and close interest in the role of COREPER, the new
arrangements for QMV in Council, and their implications for the
democratic legitimacy of the EU, alongside the other recommendations
of the Scrutiny Reform Report.
(Paragraph 98)
| 
